Killzone 3 Multiplayer = Puke

[$Greatness$]

Thank the gaming gods that the industry doesn't rely on peoples opinions on forums to make decisions.
And if they did,..



we're fooked!

Quite to the contrary, they do all the time. Why do you think games are handicapped and things get nerfed every 2 seconds in today's gaming? EL OH EL

[sainraja]

They do rely on our opinions. They shouldn't rely exclusively on our opinions, for various reasons.....starting with you can't listen to everyone and you can't please everyone. People look for different things in a game based on their preference.

[radgamer420]

I think you are just hard to please.

Agreed. I think so too.

[Sufi]

Sounds like you played a couple games and got your ass handed to you. BF3 sucks and doesnt hold a candle to KZ3.

I specifically mentioned that one of the reasons why I didn't like it was because it was too easy to get kills.

But ok. lol

KZ2 multiplayer is more like Battlefield multiplayer.

KZ3 is more like COD multiplayer.

I can see a great divide between FPS players on this.

Huh?? they are two different things.
TFC is better lol

Actually I can see in what context he meant that. I'm sure he doesn't mean that they've similar games, just that KZ2 is more realistic than KZ3 and I felt that too. I liked everything about KZ2 except the sensitivity issues. It was a good game for its time...well the single player was boring for me but I think it was primarily the sensitivity problem with the controls that ultimately put me off.

TFC, I tried this game...too much like UT for me. CS is more tactical...love tactical shooters. But I loved UT back in the day though. I still would but not in its original form...maybe with more team emphasis.

counterstrike rules all so nobody should even bother

Next multiplayer game I'm getting.

I personally want to see Sony and Mistwalker work together.

I think trying to compete directly with MS was a huge mistake for Sony. They should not bother to compete with Halo or COD...MAG was a disaster, so was SOCOM 4 and practically every shooter other than Warhawk/Starhawk...and well Resistance 1 was pretty good.

They need to reboot SOCOM, work on some japanese-style games and keep some of the better series like LBP and whatever ND/Rachet/ICO devs want to work on.

They really need to focus away from shooters. GG just doesn't know storyline, neither gameplay...those are two big things I look for in a shooter...graphics are supposed to be icing on the cake. They remind me of Crytek. No substance.

Killzone 2 requires skill and team work. I don't know what the hell happened with this game.

I did feel KZ2 being more tactical.

I think you are just hard to please.

Agreed. I think so too.

I'm not going to deny that. I might be in the minority that play too much shooters and are harder to please...but without people like me, this industry would get redundant.

[TEJ2025]

I'm not going to deny that. I might be in the minority that play too much shooters and are harder to please...but without people like me, this industry would get redundant.

This industry is redundant whether there are people "like you" or not

[timberflake]

they need to stop competing in a saturated genre where creativeness and authenticity is extremely important

This simply isn't true. CoD had become the most successful franchise of all time by finding a formula that seems to work, then churning out one game after another which has essentially changed very little since CoD4.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Linconan]

Quite to the contrary, they do all the time. Why do you think games are handicapped and things get nerfed every 2 seconds in today's gaming? EL OH EL

I'm talking/reffering to about what games, they should be/not be releasing/making as what the OP was stating/suggesting in first post.

But even still, set n match again.
The devs stuff the game up still, listening to the (know it all) community, most of the time.
KZ2 forums, at the time after release amazed me.
Perfect example for your side of comment, of community f'n things up and/or continue in future title/sequels.
I haven't heard of anything else, that i can remember atm.

Just because A game, isn't like B game... Doenst warrant the comment.
So i say thank the gaming gods.
Just saying,lol
............................................



Don't worry bout this next bit. I'm feeling abit silly and started trippin me out with AB's,lol
Get this..

If A game isn't like B game.
And, C gamer gave grade D opinion to justify B towards A.
Then Dev E makes Grade A game from B game.
A opinion is an F result.
But both Grade A games, devalues A opinion of A game towards B.
Therefore Both are Grade A games,...
and D opinion is F result again.
Which spells F 'n BAD

*cue KB mind blown jesture* lol... WTF!

[nye99]

Yea because Sony should make lose lods of money by creating japanese RPG's, that hardly anyone would buy. Fact is shooters are popular, so thats what Sony will make.

[gangsta_795]

I doubt a JRPG would be ideal for a flagship franchise....

As for BF3, both are conceptualized in a different way. That's like saying 'Hey, where the fuck are the vehicles in CoD?'

[Soldier 95B]

Sony needs to just quit making first person shooters and focus on something new, maybe an MMO. I really really really wish they had just focused on JRPGs (or Japanese-oriented games) with their first party and as far as shooters, just worked their asses on a badass SOCOM game. That's all Sony ever needed.

BF3 not only looks better in most areas, it's bigger, has all sorts of vehicles and it feels more immersive! Not to mention, actually requires skill as opposed to this arcade shooter.

Once I turned off the game, I was still somewhat depressed for a little while. I mean, why waste time and money on a POS game like this?

They need more interesting shooters like the Starhawk...they need to stop competing in a saturated genre where creativeness and authenticity is extremely important, which they lack badly. The game is horribly generic. KZ2 actually was more interesting, just that I didn't like the control sensitivity. BF3 completely stole their show and is far better as a game, as well as everything else KZ was decent in. At this point, I'll play anything that's different, just as long as it's unique and DIFFERENT!

I agree with your assessment. While I find BF3 better looking and the multiplayer better, I found the campaign in KZ3 better than the campaign in BF3. I don't know, the campaign in BF3 seems tacked on. KZ3 really carried a story forward, had story cutscenes that did a better job telling, and it felt like natural progression.

[kupo]

Yep, I agree. KZ3 MP was awful, and that's why it was dead after a month of release. BF3 destroys it at every single aspect

[gamer921]

once i turned battlefield 3 on it made me want to puke played the first 10 minutes of it and multiplayer traded it back in and got another game it was depressing after the long wait i mean waste of time and waste of money

[Nitey]

Agreed about wishing Sony had focused more on JRPGs

Re: KZ3mp - I thought it was pretty good myself, hasnt got the mainstream stay as a BF or CoD but regardless, it's a good game and the DLC maps look badass

[TOM2x]

I know there are divided camps in regards to KZ3. I loved the first 2 and I really thought KZ3 was excellent. The game plays like what it is, a FPS with space nazis basically! The game was highly rated in the reviews when it launched too. I played the hell out of the SP and although it was a bit lacking in a few areas, I found it to be entertaining and I liked the story. The MP, I played for many hours as well, and I actually was on a clan of 90+ members and many still play every day. The only thing about it was that there should have been more operations maps as those were my favorites. I can't compare it to BF or COD though, as I also play BF3 a lot and it's just too different for a comparison. IMO, nothing beats BF3 right now anyway. But KZ3 wasn't as bad as some make it out, because some want innovation, some want tight gameplay, some want graphics, ect, ect. I'm happy with a nice even mix. But seriously, KZ3 does have some awesome graphics and everyone did give it credit for that when it came out.

[TOM2x]

once i turned battlefield 3 on it made me want to puke played the first 10 minutes of it and multiplayer traded it back in and got another game it was depressing after the long wait i mean waste of time and waste of money

I don't know what you were expecting, but I love that game.

[Sufi]

This industry is redundant whether there are people "like you" or not

It is redundant but there's a community of hardcore gamers out there that still want great games.

This simply isn't true. CoD had become the most successful franchise of all time by finding a formula that seems to work, then churning out one game after another which has essentially changed very little since CoD4.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

While it is true that they didn't change much every title, they did lead us into this generation and they were the pioneers with a lot of innovations this generation. That's the reason why they're still here.

I'm talking/reffering to about what games, they should be/not be releasing/making as what the OP was stating/suggesting in first post.

But even still, set n match again.
The devs stuff the game up still, listening to the (know it all) community, most of the time.
KZ2 forums, at the time after release amazed me.
Perfect example for your side of comment, of community f'n things up and/or continue in future title/sequels.
I haven't heard of anything else, that i can remember atm.

Just because A game, isn't like B game... Doenst warrant the comment.
So i say thank the gaming gods.
Just saying,lol
............................................



Don't worry bout this next bit. I'm feeling abit silly and started trippin me out with AB's,lol
Get this..

If A game isn't like B game.
And, C gamer gave grade D opinion to justify B towards A.
Then Dev E makes Grade A game from B game.
A opinion is an F result.
But both Grade A games, devalues A opinion of A game towards B.
Therefore Both are Grade A games,...
and D opinion is F result again.
Which spells F 'n BAD

*cue KB mind blown jesture* lol... WTF!

Where did I say that KZ3 has to be like another game? I just mentioned that BF3 is a much better game. I also said that Starhawk was a great game. Those are not similar and yet I liked them both. I just said that KZ3 was bad.

Yea because Sony should make lose lods of money by creating japanese RPG's, that hardly anyone would buy. Fact is shooters are popular, so thats what Sony will make.

SOCOM 4 sold less than a mil. KZ3 about 2.18 mil. Resistance 3 about 1 mil. I don't think they're making buttloads out of those and surely RPGs sell a lot as well. Which we lacked this generation too.

I doubt a JRPG would be ideal for a flagship franchise....

As for BF3, both are conceptualized in a different way. That's like saying 'Hey, where the fuck are the vehicles in CoD?'

Sure but then there's nothing about KZ3 that's better than any popular shooter out at the moment. COD has tight controls and has that fast CS-like gameplay, BF3 is more tactical with vehicular combat. What does KZ3 have?

[emmerich]

It is redundant but there's a community of hardcore gamers out there that still want great games.

While it is true that they didn't change much every title, they did lead us into this generation and they were the pioneers with a lot of innovations this generation. That's the reason why they're still here.


Where did I say that KZ3 has to be like another game? I just mentioned that BF3 is a much better game. I also said that Starhawk was a great game. Those are not similar and yet I liked them both. I just said that KZ3 was bad.

SOCOM 4 sold less than a mil. KZ3 about 2.18 mil. Resistance 3 about 1 mil. I don't think they're making buttloads out of those and surely RPGs sell a lot as well. Which we lacked this generation too.

Sure but then there's nothing about KZ3 that's better than any popular shooter out at the moment. COD has tight controls and has that fast CS-like gameplay, BF3 is more tactical with vehicular combat. What does KZ3 have?

Let me answer that.

Lack of guns, bad maps, and no longevity.

[Bigdoggy]

the formula Sony could create is so easy though. Take a look at HOME now take a look at MMORPG's, there are two formulas in those two programs that attract people. MMORPG's attract a lot of people and HOME definitely has a good share of people. EQ and WoW was successful as well as HOME. you combine the social aspect of HOME along with the developer support that HOME has and incorporate it in an MMORPG. So you have companies still putting games and free items in it but also have the MMORPG aspect of it. I mean honestly, that right there sounds successful and a money maker (kaching kaching). It's right infront of them.

technically they still should make FPS games but there strongest thing is right infront of them. Don't even get me started on GG, they have been extremely inconsistent in making FPS games.

[The Cage]

I specifically mentioned that one of the reasons why I didn't like it was because it was too easy to get kills.

But ok. lol


Actually I can see in what context he meant that. I'm sure he doesn't mean that they've similar games, just that KZ2 is more realistic than KZ3 and I felt that too. I liked everything about KZ2 except the sensitivity issues. It was a good game for its time...well the single player was boring for me but I think it was primarily the sensitivity problem with the controls that ultimately put me off.

TFC, I tried this game...too much like UT for me. CS is more tactical...love tactical shooters. But I loved UT back in the day though. I still would but not in its original form...maybe with more team emphasis.

Next multiplayer game I'm getting.


I think trying to compete directly with MS was a huge mistake for Sony. They should not bother to compete with Halo or COD...MAG was a disaster, so was SOCOM 4 and practically every shooter other than Warhawk/Starhawk...and well Resistance 1 was pretty good.

They need to reboot SOCOM, work on some japanese-style games and keep some of the better series like LBP and whatever ND/Rachet/ICO devs want to work on.

They really need to focus away from shooters. GG just doesn't know storyline, neither gameplay...those are two big things I look for in a shooter...graphics are supposed to be icing on the cake. They remind me of Crytek. No substance.

I did feel KZ2 being more tactical.




I'm not going to deny that. I might be in the minority that play too much shooters and are harder to please...but without people like me, this industry would get redundant.

He was comparing it to BF3 not KZ3

[RaylaDevine]

@RaylaDevine - which mode did you play? was it Guerilla or Warzone? I always found a game easily on Warzone.

I played Warzone and Operations (my favorite), but it just seemed like around 8 or 9 est the lobby would die down.

I know there are divided camps in regards to KZ3. I loved the first 2 and I really thought KZ3 was excellent. The game plays like what it is, a FPS with space nazis basically! The game was highly rated in the reviews when it launched too. I played the hell out of the SP and although it was a bit lacking in a few areas, I found it to be entertaining and I liked the story. The MP, I played for many hours as well, and I actually was on a clan of 90+ members and many still play every day. The only thing about it was that there should have been more operations maps as those were my favorites. I can't compare it to BF or COD though, as I also play BF3 a lot and it's just too different for a comparison. IMO, nothing beats BF3 right now anyway. But KZ3 wasn't as bad as some make it out, because some want innovation, some want tight gameplay, some want graphics, ect, ect. I'm happy with a nice even mix. But seriously, KZ3 does have some awesome graphics and everyone did give it credit for that when it came out.

Agree! You pretty much explained exactly how I feel about this game.

[Linconan]

Where did I say that KZ3 has to be like another game? I just mentioned that BF3 is a much better game. I also said that Starhawk was a great game. Those are not similar and yet I liked them both. I just said that KZ3 was bad.

Nah man, i was only talking about your first line pretty much in your Threads first post.


Don't worry bout the little bit at the end of the post you quoted, i was just rambling as my mind was getting tripped out when i said ABs,lol
That's why i put the "..........." to seperate. Because A game isn't like B game etc (not "comparing to" but justification of the "better" one).
But they're both great games. Moral of story.

nevermind..lol

[Zswordsman]

Sorry, I'm not trying to change the topic, but uh...did anyone try the single player for this game?

This game is SO bad that I had to log in here for the first time in almost a year.

I finished it in 6 hours. The whole plot looked out of sync. Story was weak, the voiceovers were terrible.

The last two hours of gameplay consisted of you holding the R1 button for the railgun and tapping R2 for a few bombs. The left side of the controller was useless as you were not controlling any of the spaceships.

Alright, sorry, please go back to your regularly scheduled programing and **** on this games' online gameplay too.

yeah i agree i dont get where people are getting this "KZ3 SP was good" thing. KZ3 sucked hard. Its SP was just bad and didn't make sense or made me feel for the characters. Sure it had on rail segments for added action but that was it. And the ending was so f'ing BS. I mean really no awesome boss fight like in KZ2 (radec)? just ANOTHER on rails shooter segment? F'ing voice audio not syncing too.

MP was hit or miss, i liked the Operations mode and stuff but they had made KZ3 too arcade style with the lack of recoil in its guns. KZ2>KZ3

Also i haven't played BF3 since im tired of FPS but if KZ3 beats it in SP then that's just horribly bad.

[sainraja]

I liked the multiplayer of both KZ2 and KZ3. I played KZ3 more which is why I would say that I preferred it over KZ2. Both games, unfortunately, came out the year the next Uncharted was coming out and so that is why I stopped getting online as often on both games because I switched to Uncharted's multiplayer.

With KZ2, Uncharted was getting mp for the first time and they did a beta in like June/July.....so I couldn't spend much time on KZ2 because of my preference towards TPS/A.

I really don't understand the complaints about KZ3.

You either like the game or you don't. If you don't, you obviously have other games that satisfy your taste. In Sufi's case, he has BF3....

I like KZ3 multi-player (the campaign, well, I preferred the second one's), and some others do as well.

[Sufi]

He was comparing it to BF3 not KZ3

That's what I meant though. He was saying that KZ2 was more like BF3 rather than KZ3. Meaning that KZ2 was more realistic and tactical like BF3.

Nah man, i was only talking about your first line pretty much in your Threads first post.


Don't worry bout the little bit at the end of the post you quoted, i was just rambling as my mind was getting tripped out when i said ABs,lol
That's why i put the "..........." to seperate. Because A game isn't like B game etc (not "comparing to" but justification of the "better" one).
But they're both great games. Moral of story.

nevermind..lol

You don't personally think they would do better at other sort of games? I think they did a great job with LBP and a few other franchises.

[CMac21]

Loved KZ2 but KZ3 never caught my attention as much